Content count

Joined

Last visited

Community Reputation

Definitely agreed. I think this lets us focus Jefferson on playing downhill against crossers and other short-to-intermediate passing. Thomas will have CF covered, a great stable of corners on the outside, then Jefferson will rip your guy's head off if you settle for something in the middle.
Also, Clark and Elliott are a nice set of backups for the safeties.

More context, Kenny Young was allowed by the scheme to gamble and shoot gaps. Additionally, CJ Mosley continued to be on the field for a lot of non-rushing snaps (he played 90% of total), so I don't think it's fair to say he was simply less efficient.
I'm not going to argue that CJ Mosley is the best ILB in the league, but I think a fair number of people are sleeping on his positives and overemphasizing his deficiencies. Is he great in pass coverage? No, but there aren't many ILB that are. I would say he's somewhere around average for the position in that aspect of his game. Better at zone then man, IMO. I would say he's well above average to elite in every other aspect. Against the run, maintaining his responsibility for gap/assignment, calling the D and play recognition, etc. Ultimately I think people are underplaying the impact that platooning had on Peanut, Young and Levine's respective successes.
I want to see Mosley back. The tough thing is that it's hard to negotiate the contract for a guy who's just outside of the top-3 or so at his position as you can't just take the last guy's number and add a dollar (figuratively).

Barring something absolutely stupid as far as an offer, I could see the Ravens using this as a way of getting a reasonable extension in place, since another team would ostensibly discount the contract by the value of the associated 2nd rounder.

I would add that Boyle is quite good as an outlet receiver in short routes. While his 40 time was not impressive, he had the best 20- and 60-yard shuttle times in his combine (2015) by a wide margin, indicative of his short-area agility and ability to move and find soft spots underneath.

I'm a Ravens fan, so I'm intimately familiar with the whole saga. Pretty sure everything you're saying is factual, but I'm not sure what it means in the context of responding to my post.
To the bolded, I would say that it is in 100% agreement with my initial point, that to suggest teams/coaches/FOs are simply blinded by a QBs SB hardware and that's all that goes into the decision-making process (as the poster to whom I initially responded stated) is just not correct.

You're confusing two different concepts.
"We can't move on from this guy because the financial repercussions of such a move are untenable."
"We will continue to play this guy because he won a super bowl once despite current performance levels."***
My problem is with the insinuation that the decision is being made based on #2.
Even if the contract was given to him post-SB, there was undoubtedly a great deal of forward performance projection that went into it. The information (current performance level) available under item (2) above would not have been available when you awarded the contract driving item (1).
My problem is with the statement, "Eli and Flacco only have starting jobs because they won SBs." They may have received contracts solely for that reason (questionable), but then the issue is the contract status, not that teams are blinded by the hardware. Contract would be irrelevant to Broncos (no dead money being taken on), so it's far more than semantics.
I will say it once again just in case it gets lost, teams often make poor decisions. And they are certainly not above reproach. I just believe that convincing ourselves that they are making such decisions in a cartoonishly bad way while we awesome, smart people would have an infinitely better process if only because there's is SO bad is just a bit lame.
*** There's a third non-mutually exclusive option, that the coaching staff could still believe that he provided the best current option of those available to win games.

That would be much more meaningful of a point if wins/losses and success generally weren’t a zero sum game. They’re fired (in most cases) because of their shortcomings relative to their peers, not relative to the population at large.
By all means criticize. That’s why we’re here. Some decisions are in fact foolish. But again, the notion that “they don’t know crap,” is peak arrogance.
I think a lot of organizations are dumb and do dumb things (particularly relative to “smart” organizations), but I also try and have enough humility/self-awareness to work under the assumption that most teams have a more in-depth decision making process than “is this guy a well known name who has won a super bowl?”

It’s not a fallacy because I’m Not saying they’re right about everything, not even close. But the assumption that they’re SUCH bumbling idiots that they keep QBs solely because they won a SB 5+ years is just painting them as cartoonishly inept. You would need to provide some semblance of evidence to make this claim. It’s far more likely they think those players give them the best chance to win, which may be misguided.

A lot has been made about the timing of this deal from the perspective of the broncos, but I think the Ravens side is quite interesting. They could have held out for more value potentially as they didn’t have to make a move now. Clearing the cap earlier likely means they are attempting to negotiate with both Mosley and Smith. Also pierce (I think they may opt to let him negotiate a RFA deal and let them match it, rather than negotiating against themselves - that is unless they think they can entice him to sign before process starts).